"Games are a luxury item." So?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

the system is in place so jackasses like them can't fuck over the hard working people that produce our music, games, and movies.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The system in place before 1978 was like that. Disney Corporation's lobbyists put an end to that. Right now it's in place so rich jackasses can fuck over the public domain, and keep a perpetual monopoly on something they never had any right to have a perpetual monopoly to. It's not in violation of an amendment because the right in question is spelled out in the constitution itself.

You are being infuriatingly nonspecific in your arguments. Please, for the love of fuck, add something meaningful to your post so I actually have something to reply to.

Are you reading anything in this thread but the parts where I directly quoted you? I've explained this at least once a page in this thread. The original copyright law, which was allowed for in the constitution in order to promote advancement in the arts and sciences, was for a period of 14 years, with an option to extend it another 14 years at the end of the term, totaling 28 years. Over the years, it was expanded to two 28 year terms instead of two 14 year terms, doubling the period that a work could remain under copyright to 56 years. In 1976, a copyright law was passed that changed the term to the life of the author plus 50 years. This was done as a result of lawyers lobbying for the Walt Disney corporation, because Mickey Mouse's first cartoon (Steamboat Willie) was due to enter the public domain. It was then extended again twenty years later, to the life of the author plus 70 years, because you guessed it, Steamboat Willie was once again up to enter the public domain. We effectively have no public domain anymore, because big content companies keep throwing money at congress to move the end date.

Edit: As for the discrepancy between 1976 and 1978, it took two years for the new law to go into effect.

 

[Kotep]

So the reform is because of Disney, but it doesn't stop copyright law from helping people other than corporations.

And in any event, there are much better ways to protest copyright law than to pirate video games. (As a side note, civil disobedience does kind of include the idea that you have to be arrested and/or punished for the crime, to show how unjust the law is.)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So the reform is because of Disney, but it doesn't stop copyright law from helping people other than corporations.

And in any event, there are much better ways to protest copyright law than to pirate video games. (As a side note, civil disobedience does kind of include the idea that you have to be arrested and/or punished for the crime, to show how unjust the law is.)

Copyright law in general I'm okay with. If the copyright laws would go back to what they were in 1975, I'd be perfectly alright with them. The problem is that the current law isn't meant for individuals. How could it be? What individual can use money he's earning 70 years after his death? No, the current form is built entirely around companies buying up the copyright of individuals, and profiting from them long after the creator has died.

As for civil disobedience, you don't have to get arrested. You're just supposed to accept the punishment and become a martyr if anyone actually tries to enforce it on you. The goal is to get rid of it, not to be punished by it.

 

[Kotep]

Or what about the families or estates of individuals? Plus, the way you're describing it, it seems like you should be protesting Disney and overly extended copyright laws rather than protesting copyright law altogether.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Or what about the families or estates of individuals? Plus, the way you're describing it, it seems like you should be protesting Disney and overly extended copyright laws rather than protesting copyright law altogether.

That's because I am. As for families and estates, again, 56 years. If you die prematurely, your family is taken care of. If you die after the 56 years are up... you're probably an old man/woman and would have long since made plans for how to provide for your heirs and survivors.
Besides, copyright may be a limited monopoly, but you can still make money on your old work after it runs out. You're just no longer the only person who can legally do it.

Edit: I should note that while I think the current law is obscene and needs to at the very least be dialed back to the levels I'm talking about, I also think non-commercial copyright infringement should not be illegal. I have a problem with people making money on other people's work while the copyright is in effect, but as for private individuals passing copies around? That's a battle the copyright lobbyists can't win. The best thing they can do is stop prosecuting people who download for private use, and just try to entice them to buy more in the future. There's plenty of studies that show the heaviest pirates are also the heaviest purchasers.

 

[Kotep]

Right, so what I'm saying is, you should be pirating things that are 56 years past the date of creation, not things that have been recently created, if you want to say that you're taking a stance against Disney-extended copyright laws.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Right, so what I'm saying is, you should be pirating things that are 56 years past the date of creation, not things that have been recently created, if you want to say that you're taking a stance against Disney-extended copyright laws.

See my edit, above. Ideally, commercial copyright law would go back to the 56 year standard, and non-commercial copyright law would just go away. We can debate it if we want to, but long story short, non-commercial pirates are, if anything, good for the copyright owners. The MPAA and RIAA are just too pigheaded to realize it.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

the system is in place so jackasses like them can't fuck over the hard working people that produce our music, games, and movies.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The system in place before 1978 was like that. Disney Corporation's lobbyists put an end to that. Right now it's in place so rich jackasses can fuck over the public domain, and keep a perpetual monopoly on something they never had any right to have a perpetual monopoly to. It's not in violation of an amendment because the right in question is spelled out in the constitution itself.

You are being infuriatingly nonspecific in your arguments. Please, for the love of fuck, add something meaningful to your post so I actually have something to reply to.

Are you reading anything in this thread but the parts where I directly quoted you? I've explained this at least once a page in this thread. The original copyright law, which was allowed for in the constitution in order to promote advancement in the arts and sciences, was for a period of 14 years, with an option to extend it another 14 years at the end of the term, totaling 28 years. Over the years, it was expanded to two 28 year terms instead of two 14 year terms, doubling the period that a work could remain under copyright to 56 years. In 1976, a copyright law was passed that changed the term to the life of the author plus 50 years. This was done as a result of lawyers lobbying for the Walt Disney corporation, because Mickey Mouse's first cartoon (Steamboat Willie) was due to enter the public domain. It was then extended again twenty years later, to the life of the author plus 70 years, because you guessed it, Steamboat Willie was once again up to enter the public domain. We effectively have no public domain anymore, because big content companies keep throwing money at congress to move the end date.

Edit: As for the discrepancy between 1976 and 1978, it took two years for the new law to go into effect.

No, I also read the part where pony-whatshisface quoted me too. You actually expected me to slog through the inevitable 8 pages of bile I've come to expect of the escapist forums? But I digress. Thank you for clarifying.

So the reform is because of Disney, but it doesn't stop copyright law from helping people other than corporations.

And in any event, there are much better ways to protest copyright law than to pirate video games. (As a side note, civil disobedience does kind of include the idea that you have to be arrested and/or punished for the crime, to show how unjust the law is.)

Copyright law in general I'm okay with. If the copyright laws would go back to what they were in 1975, I'd be perfectly alright with them. The problem is that the current law isn't meant for individuals. How could it be? What individual can use money he's earning 70 years after his death? No, the current form is built entirely around companies buying up the copyright of individuals, and profiting from them long after the creator has died.

As for civil disobedience, you don't have to get arrested. You're just supposed to accept the punishment and become a martyr if anyone actually tries to enforce it on you. The goal is to get rid of it, not to be punished by it.

I don't see how corporations turning a profit is a problem.

 

[kannibus]

Luxury Items are overpriced? Hell, ESSENTIAL items are overpriced these days.

Hell, shopping for underwear (not luxury underwear) just a set of bloody boxers takes financial planning.